On election eve, Bossier way rears its ugly head

On the eve of city elections, controversy erupted at this week’s City Council meeting that displayed graphically the old Bossier political way, a mixture of electoral, transactional, and crony politics possibly involving corruption and certainly advertising for change from it via the upcoming electoral exercise.

Perhaps any or all of Republican Mayor Tommy Chandler, City Atty. Charles Jacobs, Asst. City Atty. Richard Ray (if watching the proceedings from afar), and nominal City Engineer Ben Rauschenbach had a sinking feeling when, during the meeting after GOP Councilor Brian Hammons had brought Rauschenbach to the podium for questioning about an agenda item, Hammons said he had an unrelated matter on which to query him. Hammons, whose day job is in building, then described a scenario where business owners were asking him about, and even petitioning for, the city reconstructing parking lots for private businesses – a matter they claimed the city had performed and one that never came before the Council for approval. He asked Rauschenbach what he knew of it.

The Waggoner Engineering employee, who by virtue of the firm’s contract with the city serves as its engineering chief, usually has information about projects and their costs at his fingertips. But this time he said he would defer to Jacobs or Ray to explain. Jacobs was present, and what ensued should be presented verbatim:

Landry finally defeats "baantjies vir boeties"

Last week, Republican Gov. Jeff Landry completed the inevitable defeat of baantjies vir boeties, making a bad but unfortunately necessary policy less obnoxious while telling special interests and courthouse gangs to go pound sand.

Baantjies vir boeties – “jobs for the boys” – was an expression heard in the old Republic of South Africa during the reign of the National Party up until majority rule came about in 1994. The instituters of apartheid pursued this strategy to keep white support from erosion by moderate-to-radical competitors focusing on economic class concerns that could distract from its racial politics message, doing so through heavy government regulation and spending to provide employment in both the public and private sectors. (Many other polities had ruling regimes that promised the same, but the old RSA example was the starkest in its brazenness.)

The same tactic, in the same sense that it was to use government power to reward supporters with jobs and other concessions, Democrat former Gov. John Bel Edwards foisted upon Louisiana when he stipulated changes to the Industrial Tax Exemption Program. This procedure had allowed a new concern a partial-to-total break from property taxes for up to a decade. The state’s Board of Commerce and Industry – mostly gubernatorial appointees and the rest being elected or appointed officials including a designee of the governor – rules on these with the governor having a veto power. Thus, a governor basically can dictate the parameters by which breaks are given.

Obtuse LA public defense board unnecessary

If this slovenliness is what we get from Louisiana’s Public Defender Oversight Board, policy-makers might as well chuck the whole thing.

Earlier this year, State Public Defender Remy Starns declared he wouldn’t renew the contracts of five of the state’s 35 district defenders. Perhaps not coincidentally, the five argued against a pay plan Starns had brought to the board last year that ultimately in the main was not accepted, which would have cut their salaries.

As a result of legislation last year, the Board underwent a name and function change. The changes took it away from an active management role and more towards the word added to its appellation, “oversight.” It did retain the power to oversee finances to the point to have power over financing decisions as under existing contracts.

Bill provides redress for subsidized bad policy

A bill the Louisiana Legislature will consider during this spring’s regular session would redress bad federal government policy that diverts use of lands within the state to low priority purposes.

HB 4 by Republican state Rep. Chuck Owen would allow individual parishes to have a final say over carbon capture sequestration within their boundaries, subject to a popular veto. The governing authority may disapprove of a sequestration siting, but if it approves a referendum may be called by 15 percent of registered voters to hold a vote disapproving. Either way, local interests will determine whether such projects get built.

That’s as it should be, because of the bias built into the tax code that is the only thing, other than ideologically-based faith, that prompts any building of these facilities placed underground to store carbon produced in industrial or consumer surroundings. Understanding the interlocked nature of the process explains where Louisiana is and why the law is beneficial.

Carbon capture, in varying forms from attendant to some industrial process that produces carbon dioxide to grabbing it from ambient as a byproduct of things such as vehicle exhaust, is the idea that removing it from the atmosphere somehow conveys useful benefits to society. Ignoring the fact that increased levels of carbon dioxide bring a number of economic and social benefits to humans, climate alarmists of a pragmatic streak have seized upon the idea as a way of having fossil fuel use – which is forecast to continue to increase countering an energy transition that never will happen that both climate alarmist pragmatists and ideologues fail to understand – along with renewable use that will solve the intractable problems for the foreseeable future of renewable source characteristics of intermittency and prohibitive expense.

The problem is capture itself is prohibitively expensive, and even with generous federal government subsidies the only activity close to break-even is capture from a manufacturing process. That’s the expensive and entirely cost-ineffective side of the equation, which nevertheless is pursued because there are some commercial applications for it and/or an ideological imperative exists that it is one avenue to prevent the mythical catastrophic anthropogenic global warning scenario that exists as an article of faith among alarmists but which at present exists without any quality scientific basis to it. Unfortunately, these fanatics make a lot of noise and cow business into pursuing these kinds of wasteful projects.

So, it’s the other end of it, storage, where money could be made at the individual level and where Louisiana landowners become disproportionately advantaged given both the state’s geology and topography and the concentration of industries producing carbon and pipelines to transport it. But it has a different set of potential costs around how transport or storage leakage can have severe environmental and public health effects. In other words, the economic advantages of it to a community well may be outweighed by the low-probability but extremely high-cost disadvantages, and as there’s no climate emergency in the offing, communities that bear the risk of these disadvantages ought to have every say possible in whether they must submit to this.

Louisiana, for now among just four other states, has complete control over permits for wells that lead to storage capacity. But it has no control over federal tax credits that are driving this misallocation of resources that distort the marketplace into throwing money around for far more storage than the unsubsidized market would bear. That could change through the budget reconciliation process, by restoring much tougher eligibility requirements, reducing the value, and removing the refundability of it, but with the GOP having slim congressional majorities that doesn’t seem likely for now.

While government generally should be prevented from interfering with voluntary transactions between private parties, that its thumb already is on the scales in this instance justifies the exception with this bill. Hysteria at its root doesn’t make for good policy, and the bill at least partially corrects for that. 

Monroe council budget alterations unwise

A Monroe City Council majority seems determined to launch a risky pay raise plan and apportion more funds to a special district with a checkered recent history, contrary to independent Mayor Friday Ellis’ fiscal year 2026 budget.

In a special meeting, the Council proposed a number of changes to the Ellis plan. Most were incremental in nature in keeping with the roughly $72 million ceiling, but a couple stood out as significant.

One shoveled $323,000 more into salary increases for city employees. The Council majority of Democrats Rodney McFarland, Verbon Muhammad, and Juanita Woods previously had expressed a desire to attempt some kind of permanent pay hike.